Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’



http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/12/20/celebrated-physicist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 6:28pm:

Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’ http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/12/20/celebrated-physicist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/

Some of us know enough to realise that we don't know enough. Others don't.

Some of us accept the advice of the best qualified, however unpleasant. Others search for convenient, but palatable, fictions.

What are his arguments?

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 6:28pm:

Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’ http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/12/20/celebrated-physicist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/

Denying the high school level science that underpins Anthropogenic Global warming and its inevitable changes in the earths climate is DEEPLY UNSCIENTIFIC

Here’s a direct quote from Darriulat’s submission:


The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case. [bold added]

Darriulat says “the main point to appreciate” is that, because the Summary was written for policymakers rather than for other scientists, it “can not be a scientific document.” His next remarks deserve to be displayed on every billboard in Times Square:
------------------------------------------------------

Darriulat seems to be attacking the IPCC from a scientific purest point of view.

And as we all know, AGW isn't based upon anything the IPCC says or does.

I certainly don't base my conclusions and opinions on anything the IPCC publishes. Look in the literature base, and what the professional scientific bodies are saying about AGW and the resultant climatic changes that awaits humanity.

Where does Darriulat refute the science of AGW?

As usual the denialists grab at any straw they can to attempt muddying the waters in the public realm.

I had a quick read through his submission. Here is an example where he made a very elementary error in his judgement:


Quote:

that they assume a sensitivity of 3° for a doubling of CO, above pre-industrial values while at most 1° is observed

That in itself demonstrates that he doesn't understand the difference between equibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response. It's understandable for someone commenting on on subject matter outside his field. The transient climate response for the last 50 years is indeed just above 1 degree, but this fails to include delayed feedback.

It also demonstrates that he didn't bother to read the Working Group 1 report "The Physical Science basis", because the explanation in right there in black and white, and it includes this graph in Figure 9.2:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/fig9-1.htm

However, the fact that he would make such pronouncements without even once consulting a worker in the field shows an arrogant disregard for experts in the field.

It also begs the question that if he set himself the task of reviewing this very document, how could he miss an entire chapter?

He says in his report that most people just read the summary for policymakers, however, he obviously didn't even read that document, because it's spelled out in black and white even in that summary. Most people apparently doesn't include himself:


Quote:

The transient climate response quantifies the response of the climate system to an increasing radiative forcing on a decadal to century timescale. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at the time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration has doubled in a scenario of concentration increasing at 1% per year. The transient climate response is likely in the range of 1.0°C to 2.5°C (high confidence ) and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C.

So is this another example of an esteemed physicist who has "lost it" with old age? It seems the most likely explanation.

It's unfortunate that people like Patrick Moore and our friend here, who lapse into pseudoscience during their senior years by commenting on subjects where they lack any clear knowledge.


Quote:

Darriulat seems to be attacking the IPCC from a scientific purest point of view.

I disagree. It's hardly purist when he gets some of the basic facts wrong himself.

Darriulat was one that lee was banging on about recently. Seems to be denailist flavour of the nanosecond.

Pierre Darriulat demands a conventional scientific summary by the IPCC in its reports, when IPCC is producing a different type of report, that has inputs from many nations, and individuals.

Its a silly demand to make and then on this basis impose a total disregard for anything the IPCC concludes.

The IPCC isn't producing a publication in a Physics Journal on elementary particle physics.

Whilst Pierre makes some valid comments concerning the format, language and conclusions of the latest IPCC report, they really aren't relevant in this instance. He is acting like a peer reviewer for an International Scientific Journal. They always pick at any element of a paper for the purpose of improving it or perhaps exposing an error etc.

Personally I find the output and recommendations made by the IPCC very conservative (not surprising seeing as how many people and nations are involved in their report making process)

Need to head out this evening.

I will not be contributing anything in this forum for the rest of this year at least.

Happy New Year

---

Happy New Year Chimp (When it comes)


Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 8:42pm:

He is acting like a peer reviewer for an International Scientific Journal.

Perhaps a Peer Reviewer who is not familiar with the subject matter of the paper and who doesn't actually read it properly.

Definitely not a pal reviewer.

You've got to keep the faith  ;D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 8:42pm:

Pierre Darriulat demands a conventional scientific summary by the IPCC in its reports, when IPCC is producing a different type of report, that has inputs from many nations, and individuals. Its a silly demand to make and then on this basis impose a total disregard for anything the IPCC concludes. The IPCC isn't producing a publication in a Physics Journal on elementary particle physics. Whilst Pierre makes some valid comments concerning the format, language and conclusions of the latest IPCC report, they really aren't relevant in this instance. He is acting like a peer reviewer for an International Scientific Journal. They always pick at any element of a paper for the purpose of improving it or perhaps exposing an error etc. Personally I find the output and recommendations made by the IPCC very conservative (not surprising seeing as how many people and nations are involved in their report making process)

Personally I find the output and recommendations made by the IPCC very unscientific (not surprising seeing as how many activists and 1st year graduates are involved in their report making process)

It must be remembered that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political forum. It is the Politicians who met in Stockholm to decide on the wording of the Summary for Policy Makers.

The scientific reports must agree with the SPM, not the other way around, The tail wagging the dog. The political imperative overriding the scientific imperative.

Is it any wonder the underlying reports reflect the SPM?

lee wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 9:48pm:

Definitely not a pal reviewer.

Do you know the difference?

I don't doubt that you'll reject the sources, but here are a couple, to give you an idea of what differentiates true peer review from the "pal review" favoured in denialist circles:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pal-review-true-story-fairy-tale.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-prefer-pal-review-over-peer-review-chris-de-freitas-pat-michaels-and-their-pals-1997-2003

# wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 11:08am:

lee wrote on Dec 31st, 2013 at 9:48pm: Definitely not a pal reviewer. Do you know the difference? I don't doubt that you'll reject the sources, but here are a couple, to give you an idea of what differentiates true peer review from the "pal review" favoured in denialist circles: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pal-review-true-story-fairy-tale.html http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-prefer-pal-review-over-peer-review-chris-de-freitas-pat-michaels-and-their-pals-1997-2003

You use the 2 known lying sites for the AGW church. Well done.

Judging by your history, you spend a great deal of time trawling AGW loon blogs, seeking out those who say what you want to hear. Over and above the OP

# wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 11:08am:

lee wrote on Dec 31st, 2013 at 9:48pm: Definitely not a pal reviewer. Do you know the difference? I don't doubt that you'll reject the sources, but here are a couple, to give you an idea of what differentiates true peer review from the "pal review" favoured in denialist circles: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pal-review-true-story-fairy-tale.html http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-prefer-pal-review-over-peer-review-chris-de-freitas-pat-michaels-and-their-pals-1997-2003

Ah SKS- Did you see who were the reviewers of John Cook's 97% piece?

Now look at the SKS team. Notice any similarities?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 7:55pm:

Here’s a direct quote from Darriulat’s submission: The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case. [bold added] Darriulat says “the main point to appreciate” is that, because the Summary was written for policymakers rather than for other scientists, it “can not be a scientific document.” His next remarks deserve to be displayed on every billboard in Times Square: ------------------------------------------------------ Darriulat seems to be attacking the IPCC from a scientific purest point of view. And as we all know, AGW isn't based upon anything the IPCC says or does. I certainly don't base my conclusions and opinions on anything the IPCC publishes. Look in the literature base, and what the professional scientific bodies are saying about AGW and the resultant climatic changes that awaits humanity. Where does Darriulat refute the science of AGW? As usual the denialists grab at any straw they can to attempt muddying the waters in the public realm.

Good science is defined by error value!

End of story,.... nice and concise end to that rightie con theorists account of the world as we know it  :D

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 11:38am:

# wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:08am: lee wrote on Dec 31st, 2013 at 9:48pm: Definitely not a pal reviewer. Do you know the difference? I don't doubt that you'll reject the sources, but here are a couple, to give you an idea of what differentiates true peer review from the "pal review" favoured in denialist circles: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pal-review-true-story-fairy-tale.html http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-prefer-pal-review-over-peer-review-chris-de-freitas-pat-michaels-and-their-pals-1997-2003 You use the 2 known lying sites for the AGW church. Well done. Judging by your history, you spend a great deal of time trawling AGW loon blogs, seeking out those who say what you want to hear. Over and above the OP

Why is it unparliamentry to use such terminology one wonders?  ;)

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 11:59am:

... Ah SKS-...

Do you know who has more commendations and testimonials than any denialist site?

# wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 12:48pm:

lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:59am: ... Ah SKS-... Do you know who has more commendations and testimonials than any denialist site?

Trailer tr# retreats to authoritarian argument.....the final refuge of the pal reviewed shyster  ;D

# wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 12:48pm:

lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:59am: ... Ah SKS-... Do you know who has more commendations and testimonials than any denialist site?

er wow, like that means jack sh..... The church giving the church awards. Are you really going to suggest that nonscence.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 1:01pm:

# wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 12:48pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:59am: ... Ah SKS-... Do you know who has more commendations and testimonials than any denialist site? er wow, like that means jack sh..... ...

Rider wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 1:00pm:

... authoritarian argument..... ...

Recommendation by the credible lends credibility. A source doesn't win something like a Eureka without good reason.

No denialist site has any such credibility.

# wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 1:23pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:01pm: # wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 12:48pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:59am: ... Ah SKS-... Do you know who has more commendations and testimonials than any denialist site? er wow, like that means jack sh..... ... Rider wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:00pm: ... authoritarian argument..... ... Recommendation... No credibility.

Quote me in totality ok trailer tr#

Rider wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 1:00pm:

# wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 12:48pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:59am: ... Ah SKS-... Do you know who has more commendations and testimonials than any denialist site? Trailer tr# retreats to authoritarian argument.....the final refuge of the pal reviewed shyster  ;D

The markets rely on qualification for efficiency: read 'EFFICACY'!! Ya getting desperate there buddy aren't ya!  8-)

# wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 1:23pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:01pm: # wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 12:48pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:59am: ... Ah SKS-... Do you know who has more commendations and testimonials than any denialist site? er wow, like that means jack sh..... ... Rider wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:00pm: ... authoritarian argument..... ... Recommendation by the credible lends credibility. A source doesn't win something like a Eureka without good reason. No denialist site has any such credibility.

They're trying to drag you into the fictional space where the planet accountant lives: divorced from reality big time where there is no gravitational authority allowed!

Not that you don't know this,... i'm just using all the angles to expose what they still consider a united purpose  8-)

These people actually love to run: the thing about psychos is they can't stomach boredom and that is exactly what counting coin brings.... so it's a continuual game fot the planet accpuntant to save himself from himself  ;D

Rider wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 1:55pm:

# wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:23pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:01pm: # wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 12:48pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:59am: ... Ah SKS-... Do you know who has more commendations and testimonials than any denialist site? er wow, like that means jack sh..... ... Rider wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:00pm: ... authoritarian argument..... ... Recommendation... No credibility. Quote me in totality ok trailer tr#

Rightie is channeling daddykins temper.. lookout world you're about to get < IT'S A BOY>  ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 2:06pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:00pm: # wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 12:48pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:59am: ... Ah SKS-... Do you know who has more commendations and testimonials than any denialist site? Trailer tr# retreats to authoritarian argument.....the final refuge of the pal reviewed shyster  ;D The markets rely on qualification for efficiency: read 'EFFICACY'!! Ya getting desperate there buddy aren't ya!  8-)

You and Tr# need to take a holiday course in Reality.  Perhaps a 'scientific' cruise over the holidays to see the Antarctic ice before it all melts.....call 1300 SHIP_OF_FOOLS  for bookings

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 10:35am:

It must be remembered that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political forum. It is the Politicians who met in Stockholm to decide on the wording of the Summary for Policy Makers. The scientific reports must agree with the SPM, not the other way around, The tail wagging the dog. The political imperative overriding the scientific imperative. Is it any wonder the underlying reports reflect the SPM?

Science, and therefore the evolution of civilisation, is conducted by whom?

...pWNership is on the line so think carefully!!!!  :o

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 11:38am:

... Judging by your history, you spend a great deal of time trawling AGW loon blogs, seeking out those who say what you want to hear. ...

Why would I need to seek out the mainstream view? What makes you think that I want to hear the opinion of the vast majority of the best qualified?

I'd much rather the majority opinion was something more comforting. Any responsible adult needs to know it. Others will seek out the comforting fictions of denialism.


progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 11:38am:

... Over and above the OP

What do you think you see in the OP?

Rider wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 1:55pm:

... Quote me in totality ok trailer tr#

Why would I waste the space?

Rider wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 2:22pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 2:06pm: Rider wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:00pm: # wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 12:48pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:59am: ... Ah SKS-... Do you know who has more commendations and testimonials than any denialist site? Trailer tr# retreats to authoritarian argument.....the final refuge of the pal reviewed shyster  ;D The markets rely on qualification for efficiency: read 'EFFICACY'!! Ya getting desperate there buddy aren't ya!  8-) You and Tr# need to take a holiday course in Reality.  Perhaps a 'scientific' cruise over the holidays to see the Antarctic ice before it all melts.....call 1300 SHIP_OF_FOOLS  for bookings

Just can't buck me off can you mr pWned cos you love it! Daddy didn't teach you anything but now you see and want to see more perhaps?

Hey, anytime,... 'buckeroo!' .....  :-*

# wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 3:18pm:

Rider wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 1:55pm: ... Quote me in totality ok trailer tr# Why would I waste the space?

He wants to go my way but ill send him on back one way or the other  ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 8:32am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 31st, 2013 at 8:42pm: Pierre Darriulat demands a conventional scientific summary by the IPCC in its reports, when IPCC is producing a different type of report, that has inputs from many nations, and individuals. Its a silly demand to make and then on this basis impose a total disregard for anything the IPCC concludes. The IPCC isn't producing a publication in a Physics Journal on elementary particle physics. Whilst Pierre makes some valid comments concerning the format, language and conclusions of the latest IPCC report, they really aren't relevant in this instance. He is acting like a peer reviewer for an International Scientific Journal. They always pick at any element of a paper for the purpose of improving it or perhaps exposing an error etc. Personally I find the output and recommendations made by the IPCC very conservative (not surprising seeing as how many people and nations are involved in their report making process) Personally I find the output and recommendations made by the IPCC very unscientific (not surprising seeing as how many activists and 1st year graduates are involved in their report making process)

List everyone involved in the IPCC reports

In particular list the names of every single activist and 1st year graduate involved in every single Report released by the IPCC.

Define what an activists is.

Why would the opinions of an activist be any less credible than anybody else's?

What parts of the IPCC report have you read you smelly deranged slab of rotting weasel excrement urine paste?

Having been a research assistant briefly for two years after graduating, I know that research assistants do a great deal of the leg work, however the researcher checks absolutely everything methodically. This is perfectly normal.

On most occasions, I got acknowledgements in the final papers, and on one occasion, was included in the "et al".